****************************************** "The ring cannot be destroyed, Gimli, son of Gloin, by any craft that we here possess. The ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom. Only there can it be unmade. The ring must be taken deep into Mordor and cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came. One of you must do this."

Saruman would have to play a crucial role in all of these White Council meetings, setting the stage for his turn to evil. Now, given Lee's feelings about his exclusion from ROTK and his age, the last I heard was he couldn't travel all the way to New Zealand any more. That doesn't mean they couldn't set him in front of a blue screen in London and finish all his scenes in a few days. If Radagast is in, he must be as well. But will they cast a new actor or finally convince him to come back to Middle Earth?

HOW DARE PJ LEAVE IN THE TALKING PURSE!!!! ****************************************** "The ring cannot be destroyed, Gimli, son of Gloin, by any craft that we here possess. The ring was made in the fires of Mount Doom. Only there can it be unmade. The ring must be taken deep into Mordor and cast back into the fiery chasm from whence it came. One of you must do this."

Christopher Lee would love to play Saruman in The Hobbit
[In reply to]

Can't Post

as long as his parts can be filmed in London. He said so himself in an interview with IGN. I'd be over the moon if we got him back, but at this stage I'd settle for Frank Langella. As long as they don't try to 'write around' Saruman – that would be a terrible mistake and would cause a whole plethora of missed opportunities.

I could be wrong, but my interpretation of geordie's post was that he was somewhat jokingly referring to the fact that he expected all along that the films wouldn't be any more faithful to the source (or enjoyable) than he found Jackson's LotR films. I doubt that he was genuinely expressing any real disappointment with this news beyond his already low expectations.

But of course I could be wrong. 'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

If we learned anything about Pete during the LOTR trilogy, it was that he (and co.) can write a good story. While I love the LOTR book, I think the films present a better story, mostly because it combines parts of other Tolkein writings. Pete left out much from the LOTR, but nothing was left out in the end; lines from deleted characters were given to others, etc, and so much was added in from other Tolkein sources. I adore the LOTR trilogy and consider myself part of the fellowship thanks, in no small part, to the "making of" sequences in the extended additions. I trust Pete to do the job well.

As for The Hobbit, my desire has always been to have Bilbo (Holm) narrate the story, beginning with him (before the LOTR) telling his tale to a young Frodo, and perhaps Sam and others as well. Perhaps Holm was simply unable to do so, and as a result the idea of Frodo telling the tale came to pass. The timing is tricky, to be sure, but I think we can trust Pete to get it right. Pete has always maintained that he wants The Hobbit to be able to stand on it's own, and I think it will. Don't you remember how painstakingly Pete went through the trilogy, making sure it made sense, that the story flowed? Don't you recall how some ideas were tried before Pete realized it wouldn't work that way, so they tried something else? Remember Arwen at Helms Deep? There were countless ideas that, in the end, didn't pass muster with Pete (and co.), and I'm sure if the Frodo idea doesn't pan out, Pete will change it.

To me, the best idea (knowing so little of Pete's thinking) would be to have Frodo reading the newly finished book in Rivendale. Then the line that "our journey didn't turn out like Bilbo's" or something to that effect which Frodo says to Sam in Rivendale takes on new meaning. Or, perhaps it will just be Elijah Wood narrating the film (as Frodo or not); those who have not seen the LOTR certainly wouldn't know any better. In the end, it's all conjecture. Many would have (and probably did) moaned and groaned about the "murder" (lol) of Tom Bombadil (sp?) in the LOTR; but in the end, all was well, and all was great, and we have a film(s) for the ages. Let me repeat, I trust Pete!

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars, and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man, for precisely the same reasons. -- Douglas Adams

- sorry, Dormouse - and al those of my friends who expressed concern. But this is too much. This really took me off guard. The thought of that foul-mouthed young man* in another movie with a link to Tolkien is more than I can stomach. In fact, I've gone right off the idea of the movies altogether.

I'm off - I've enjoyed my short stay here on ToRn. I wish you all the best. Bye.

*I shan't go into details, because this is a family-friendly site. Those who've been around as long as I have will know what I mean.

Not quite certain how to react to this, certainly not against it, but neither unreservedly for it. I believe that execution would be the key, and the extent to which Frodo shall occupy screen time. Ultimately, I can't really be assured of the viability of inserting Frodo into TH until I actually view the final product, therefore I shall adopt the 'cautiously optimistic' stance for the time being. Intriguing times.

Now I await, with bated breath, the announcement of the return of Sir Christopher Lee. Hopefully one shall be forthcoming within the next couple of weeks.

was actually Frodo so why not have him narrate , or at least introduce the beginning of Bilbo's tale ?

I agree, I am fine with this and I've missed " the boys ", so I'd love to see them all sitting around Bag End's fireplace, with Sam's children on his lap as Frodo begins the tale... There's something of everything here, The Shire and the Golden Wood and Gondor and kings' houses and inns and meadows and mountains all mixed.

....and there are Elves when you want them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Formerly A'amel from days gone by.

Some people have concerns about how Frodo would logically fit into the story. Expressing concern is not whining. Are we to just go ahead and agree to whatever changes the studio makes without any discussion of the positives and negatives? That seems rather silly.

I have been supportive of casting Legolas in The Hobbit, provided he does not kill Smaug, because he would have been alive at the time and likely present in Mirkwood.

Frodo's inclusion makes me slightly more concerned about the story, but I hope the filmmakers keep his presence to a minimum and only put him in as a narrator or something along those lines. Until we see the final product it is impossible to know how this will play out. "Cautiously optimistic" was a good way of putting it.

The point is, it doesn't matter what bit of news has been released...I come on here and 80% of the comments are negative, complaining, or sarcastic remarks about how the filmmakers' only real desire is to destroy this story. I wish there was a positive discussion thread sometimes.

I am in his generation, so I must admit I chuckled a bit-- my mouth can be vicious at times. Different times, and a different class- he is from Hollywood, after all, and I know enough in the industry to know that their mouths can be real icky!

Best of luck in your travels, geordie. I enjoyed reading your posts, different opinion or no :) Please stop by anytime! Perhaps another board where talks of the Hobbit are not so rife? :) *hug* My LiveJournal ~ My artwork and photography

NARF since age 8, when I refused to read the Hobbit because the cover looked boring and icky.

So I just had a thought of how they could do the Hobbit-to-LOTR transition. At the beginning of the first Hobbit movie a young Frodo (Elijah looks perpetually young so he'll be fine) sneaks "the Red Book" out of Bilbo's study and starts reading it bringing us into the world of The Hobbit adventure. Maybe we see Frodo reading it a few more times between then and the end of the 2nd movie. But the end of the second movie should come out of "The Hobbit" story to show Frodo finishing reading The Hobbit in the Red Book while sitting under a tree, effectively ending his narraration - and the camera pans out and Frodo hears Gandalf's singing - and we realize that the famous opening shot of Fellowship of Frodo reading under a tree was actually him reading The Hobbit?

Fans will never agree with one another about anything, and complaints *do* tend to stand out the loudest. More people take time to write out grievances than joys, at least if online reviews are to be believed.

I really can't find any way to be upset at this. It just makes me feel all warm and happy inside. And I am someone who read all the books first, many times, starting in early childhood, and had a very strong attachment and respect for all things Tolkien long before the movies appeared. But this just feels right to me. Peek-A-Boo!

I love the books AND the movies! While it's fair to say that I found some of the changes in LOTR jarring, I was never offended by them as some folks seem to be. I have a distinct memory of seeing FOTR for the first time and thinking, "Boy, they got out of the Shire awful fast," but upon repeated viewings of the film, I came to understand the logic of compressing the time-frame of the early chapters. I've written stage adaptations of literary works, and even though I have to make changes to fit the constraints of a different medium, I always do it with the utmost affection for the original source material. I think it's clear if one listens to the DVD commentary tracks that Peter, Fran, and Phiippa feel the same way. I MAINTAIN THAT ONE CAN BE A "PURIST" AND STILL LOVE THE FILMS!! I am, I do, and I am confident that come December 2012, I will!!